Do any of you advocating arming this bunch actually know a teacher?

I'm not talking about PTA or parent's night.

First of all they won't carry, they are the biggest libs on the planet. Second of all, most of them can't get 20 6th graders on a school bus without some type of drama.

THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I WOULD ARM THOSE PEOPLE! I don't even want pilots armed. I would rather arm the kids than 99.9% of the teachers I know.

It occurs to me that the copy-cat nature of these crimes means that had the media not given the scumbag perpetrators any coverage, others would not be striving for their 15 minutes of fame as well.

Why not deny any media publicity to these events outside of their immeduiate communities? It really isn't a national story anyway.

Maybe we need media control? Does the First Amendment "people" differ from the Second?

TR

Too many sheep. Too many wolves. Too few sheep dogs!

Jim

Roger Ebert had interesting words on this topic when reviewing the movie Elephant by Gus Van Sant.

My mom, girlfriend and sis-in-law are all teachers. Only one of the three would be interested in carrying a weapon - especially at school. The one is my gf and it's only because I have opened her eyes to the real world in which we live. My mom and SIL are not anti-gun... but they are not the type to use a gun (even if it was available) against a student. I love them dearly, but they are very much sheep. They'd probably protect the students from an outside predator, but they lack the warrior mindset to engage a threat with any verocity. I also don't see them willingly taking the kind of training we'd want them to have.

That said, there are teachers who would happily bear arms. We do have teachers that are avid shooters, hunters and many who are former military (remember "troops to teachers") or are in the Guard/Reserve. Heck, my high school had a rifle team which included several .22LR rifles and an indoor range in the basement. It went away in the late 90's because of rising insurance costs and administrators less willing to fight for it.

I guess what I am driving at is that even if we only have the gym teachers, wrestling coach, and the occasional teacher, vice principal, etc. armed -- it is better than none. Yes, physical security/deterence is the first priority, but nothing is airtight as we all know.

It only takes a couple per school.

Find the retired military, former cops, and CCW licensees who are teaching, give those who are willing to particvipate and if neccessary take lives proper training, rules and procedures to follow, annual evals, and they should be indistinguishable any normal day as background noise.

As a parent of kids here in the US public school system, I would rather have a teacher armed and trained that to have the killer walking around, kicking doors and killing kids at will till the SWAT team arrives, suits up, gets an intel dump, makes a plan, moves into position, stacks up, and breaches. IIRC, most bad guys run out of ammo or vicitms (or kill themselves) before the cops get there and take them out.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

NDD,

My father was a teacher/ high school counsler for 20 years. He spent 3 years in SEA with Air America. He can still shoot pretty well even though he hasn't seriously shot in 30+ years. If he still worked in education he would carry and have no qualms about smoking some shitbag who came to the school to do bad things.

But he's the exception to your point, kinda like my old math teacher who was 5th SF in Vietnam.

I'm with you on this completely.

With all due respect to Doc...Yes I do know a lot of teachers. Many of which I would put up against you in any gun on gun match you want to devise.
A couple of local middle school teachers are Group wives and they train a lot. I know for a fact that some have chosen to risk the wrath of folks who think that only THEY are one of the chosen few who can shoot and handle stressful situations. Some of these teachers have the permitted gun in the trunk of the car. Perhaps they can get to it just like the Assistant Principle in Mississippi and save a few lives. They could get fired if found out but they are willing to take the risk.
I have put on private classes for teachers at private schools who are very aware of the amount of carnage that can take place with the current response time of police. We spent many hours working of drawing from a seated position with the gun in a desk drawer. Guess where their gun is....Could it possibly be in a lock drawer in a class room.
Your very arrogant position of not wanting teachers and pilots armed is the very thing the liberal anti gun crowd want ignorant people to buy. That only the uniformed, badge carry folks deserve to carry a gun. NOT SO. To many police think “I’ve got mine so why do they need theirs” (guns that is)
Just because you have more training (Perhaps!) than a pilot or teacher who attends a course focusing on specific handgun task does not mean they cannot perform the task needed in and emergency situation. They are not being called upon to call for fire using a 9 lines or give a brief back to the commander or patrol covertly thru enemy territory. Don't confuse the missions.
Obviously those that have a problem with using deadly force or those who are not up to par should not carry. But there are many who are trained, capable and ready to live up to their responsibility as a citizen and a leader.
I have found in fact that many teachers are not liberal. At least not the many dozens and dozens I have had in training or just gone shooting with.
And as for Airline pilots. I am very familiar with the training requirement they endure before being allowed to store a gun in the cockpit and it is not a simple course. I fly armed occasionally for the local Sheriff Department and am aware of the safety procedures in place. Any pilot who does not fly armed in today’s world is risking his crew and passengers by ignoring a critical tool in the war on terrorism. There is a waiting list of commercial pilots wanting to get certified to go armed. I hope they all do.
Don’t be a sheep in wolf’s clothing. Don’t generalize or stereotype people by supporting restrictive gun laws. Let’s focus on getting them trained and allow qualified individuals to be on the streets in the schools and planes to counter these morons attacking us.

Well this started off pretty good, but I lost the "due respect" part when the words "arrogant" and "wolf in sheeps clothing" came out.

I understand your point and can accept it given the correct circumstances and audience, but I also know that what you are saying has a lot to do about where you are and the population of teachers that you have trained and the focus of those who are willing to confront these problems. That is certainly different than up here and in many other places and schools with which I have had experiences as a parent. Yes I also know teachers some good, some conservative and whole bunch that are liberal but then I am not conducting a survey here just expressing my limited experience with those with whom I have had interactions over the years. My wife was one and my daughter is currently one. My daughter is a different case, however, because if she was a guy she would need a wheelbarrow in which to carry her testicals. She would shoot and I have trained her to do so.

First off, this is an academic argument, since none of us are likely to pass legislation or enforce it. No need for hostility or namecalling, we just have different opinions.

Having said that, I am failing to understand how allowing those who wish to participate after undergoing the requisite training and background checks further endangers our students.

Particularly since the only thing stopping an armed individual from walking into a classroom in my kids' school and killing every child in the room is the ability to pull open the outer door and walk into a classroom with 30 rounds and a functioning firearm. Or machete, or baseball bat, or suicide bomb belt, or a five gallon can of gas and a BIC.

I would put my skills, or those of a competently trained teacher up against almost all potential bad guys. In fact, the program could easily require more training and rounds fired than many LE certification programs.

I have kids in the public school system, understand the risks versus possible benefits, have made my risk assessment, and am willing to take it, provided that the certification, rules, and training is adequate.

So far, I am not hearing logical arguments against it, including those offered by Rosie O'Donnell.

These same concerns were used against CCW legislation and arming pilots, which last time I checked, have not been a source of problems.

The Safer Schools Legislation has, if anything, made this sort of attack easier as lawful firearms owners are discouraged from having their weapons handy, and are in fact, criminalized.

If there is an SRO, and he fails, or is somewhere else at that moment, there is no further line of defense. You simply wait for the assassin to come for you. And no praying out loud either. Is that the option you want for your kids?

TR

Outstanding post.



I actually would be for teachers carrying, provided they pass training and qualify. I would also say that I would want it to be a harder qualification than most, considering the environment. Heck, maybe we could send them to CLS class annually too.

That being said, I realize it will probably never happen. If anything went wrong, the lawsuits that fly would probably outnumber the bullets that fly by 20 to 1.


S

Pilots and Teachers
 

I think pilots and teachers are two completely different discussions.
Airline pilots are dealing with trained terrorists. Teachers are dealing with kids that are psychotic, stoned or otherwise emotionally unstable

Pilots have a security system in place that screens out the wackos. Pilots can keep their weapons in a semi-secure environment and access them easily when needed (passengers don’t mingle in the cockpit). Furthermore, pilots are generally intelligent, stable individuals who are use to intense training and following proper safety procedures. Many are former military men and women.

On the other hand….
Teachers are generally younger; less trained, and of a non-confrontational mind set (i.e. LIBERAL). They have no way to buffer themselves from the kids. In other words the guns and kids are in the same proximity all day. I think arming teachers would increase school shootings ten fold. I believe we would regularly have kids taking the teachers weapons in a fit of rage or as a planned attack.

I have met numerous teachers in the last 20 years both as a parent and as a non-teaching facility member (coach) at the local high school. The vast majority I would not trust with a firearm. Especially in a crisis situation!

Yes there are always exceptions. Yes, there are hundreds or thousands of teachers who could handle weapons in a crisis. However, I believe they are in the extreme minority in the public school system.

IMHO, NDD is much more right than wrong.

Has anybody heard of any RECENT terrorist attacks in Israeli schools? :munchin Peregrino

One more thing.....
If we are talking about intensive training and high standards for teachers than make that training related to academics! School shootings are tragic and get lots of ink but the crisis in America is education. I have been shocked time and time again when hiring young graduates to find they can’t do simple math or write a grammatically correct sentence.
Let’s figure out how to provide adequate security in schools but let’s not look to the educators to provide it.

Okay... time to step down off my soapbox.

March, 2002 – Five students were shot to death and twenty - three other people wounded in an attack by Palestinian terrorists on a pre-military high school in Atzmona , Israel .

Source: schoolterrorism.com


Most recent I've found. That site has an interesting timeline of school terrorist events.

I definitely must agree. I've seen graduates that can't seem to tell the difference between there, their, and they're. :rolleyes:
Now let me get down off your soapbox.

But we must make sure they have a safe place to learn. This certainly isn't the only option. How else would you improve security?


S

The point is being missed by a lot of these comments. It does not matter if kids are not educated to the level you believe in. It does not matter if teachers are liberal or not. The point was made in the quote in the paper concerning the school staff member who retrieved his gun from his car and stopped the shooting in Mississippi.
It does not take weeks of training to become proficient with a handgun once you remove much of the tactics, room clearing etc out of the program and focused on the need at hand. Also the common threat is adults attacking schools or older teenagers who could be classified as adults. It would only take one armed teacher, janitor, principle or office staff with the fundamental basic skills to stop such an attack. There is no need for advanced L.E. tactics just the basic self defense pistol skills needed to stay alive. They would not be making arrest on fighting to stay alive or keep kids alive. These predators are targeting known unarmed victims. An armed individual in the school would change the dynamics greatly. Many if not most of the teachers and staff could be trained. Of course no one would be forced or required to but the laws can easily be adjusted to allow legally armed citizens to have a secured gun on campus still allowing for quick access.
The backward logic currently used bans a tool (firearms) from a specific location (school grounds) because criminals who don't follow the law anyway abuse the tool. This stops safe, trained and legal citizens from being able to defend themselves and others. There would absolutely be no increased danger to children if we allowed legally armed citizens to carry in school. But any of the last 3 events where kids were shot could have been stopped if ..Say the janitor had a firearm or the principle was armed.
Teachers already have a responsibility for the security of our kids and of themselves. We just don't let them have the tools for an extreme reaction to an extreme event.

We can make a difference folks.
I will be meeting with several representative from firearm training facilities both civilian and L.E. and we will be sitting down with a state representative to propose adjustments to our states Handgun Permit laws to allow qualified people to go armed on school grounds. We did it before and got the law change to allow permitted guns in places that sale alcohol. It took two years but the law got changed because we had the knowledge and positive attitude and persistence to convince the law makers to adjust the law.
Don’t just bitch about it on this forum. If you really have strong feeling about this issue call your law makers and remind them who they work for. I try to help out during their campaigning. I donate money to their campaigns, I visit the capital and observe them at work and I step in when there is something I am knowledgeable about and want to change.
We can make a difference. Its not easy but it can be done

I was a high school teacher for four years right after I got out of college - Elgin High Shool 1977-81, biology and physics. Other teachers in my department were: Marine Viet Nam combat vet, Navy vet (fueled jets on a carrier), Army vet (Korea, Germany), a take-no-crap young hottie from a holler in Kentucky, a full-blown hippie (best friend of the VN vet), and a left-wing zealot who'd give you the shirt off his back. The first four and I grew up with guns in our hands. The Navy vet was mean as a snake, but if he snapped he'd prefer to beat you to death with his hands.

I hunt pheasants with two local teachers, one of whom is a also a decent IDPA shooter.

The problem is you can't just arm certain segments of the group - it is an all or nothing deal. Just like the pilots. Yes, there are those that are capable or could be made that way - then there are those that shouldn't be allowed to pilot the Special School's entry in the soap box derby.

I agree with TR - if the press would quit making soap operas out of it, it would help.
There is a poll on the teacher thing if anybody is interested - LINK

I am amazed at the number of people here who feel that they need to put in their two cents worth without reading the previous posts.

Let me break this down for you. I am not advocating issuing firearms to every teacher whether they want them or not and letting them toss their weapon (loaded) into an unsecured desk drawer. All pilots are not required to be armed. Not all pilots are allowed to be armed, though why you would give them a 200,000 lb. airplane with 300 human lives to ferry around but not trust them with a gun is beyond me.

Those teachers and staff who can meet screening requirements and who are willing to take up arms to defend them could apply and if selected, be trained in security and their use. They would be able to carry them to school, where they could be secured in a locked container and only removed for an emergency or to leave campus. Furthermore, those with valid CCWs should not be prevented from bringing them onto school property and leaving them secured in their POVs. A large number of teachers, especially in urban schools, are likely already doing this in violation of the law.

Again, the arming of every teacher and janitor with WMD is not being advocated here.

TR

[
Again, the arming of every teacher and janitor with WMD is not being advocated here.

TR[/QUOTE]

How true.

And yes you can arm just certain segments of a group. It is done every day within our society. Every citizen in the majority of states is allowed to carry a gun for self defense. However only those certain segments of that group who complete the requirements man do so. (training, background check etc.) Pilots are allowed by federal law to carry however they must meet certain requirement one of which is for the parent airline to approve before they can do so.
I am advocating that ALL teachers and school staff be allowed to go armed if they are the segment of teachers and staff who meet the requirements for training and ability. In the current situation none, not even the well qualified are allowed.
There is a big difference in a total ban of a thing....NO firearms in school...
and the authorization for authority figures to go armed if qualified.

Concur with TR here.

I currently teach ~1000-1200 CHL students a year (for about 8 years or so) and a little less than 2% (when asked voluntarily to raise their hands for a head count) are teachers.

I end up speaking with almost all of them on this very topic. None of them fit the "liberal" label as far as I could tell. They tended to shoot well (nothing too demanding on the course) and they were serious about gun issues. Most of them expressed concerns about liability in the classroom though....

An interesting statistic from the CHL school where I teach, of the 22,000 + students we've taught, only 5 have been in shootings, only one went to jail (he talked to the police for over 8 hours without the benefit of legal council present as I recall).

One out of 22,000+. We must be doing something right down here in Texas....:munchin

Mr. Logan,
Sorry, I missed this before.
Interesting post. You've never seen me pull a trigger and you talk about "putting someone up"? You should know better than that.

I see by your profile that you worked at The Lake, so you know what it takes to keep up the skill sets that are required for discriminatory shooting in confined spaces with large numbers of choices. Now, let's look at this objectively shall we? Pilots - I believe they already have extensive re-quals they have to go through in order to be pilots. Then they have the actual flights, crew rest, etc. When are they going to train with weapons?

Teachers probably have the time, but where will they go? Is there a range with classroom mock-ups in every town that would arm them? where you going to find 30 role players per session?

Others may disagree and that's ok, but I firmly believe that the kind of shooting we are talking about here cannot be trained to the level required on a flat range or out at the local dump.

Yes, I am arrogant. Very arrogant in fact. Never denied it. I have also spent most of my adult life training soldiers to do exactly what we are talking about here. About 300 of them in the last 3 years. NCA troops. We also train instructors to do the same. About 50 of them in the last couple of years. These are combat troops, volunteers, in their prime. Everyday, I see what happens to their skills after as little as two weeks off their guns. Every six weeks, we spend 2-3 weeks getting them back up to speed.

You are mistaken about what I think. I believe in responsible, professional gun ownership. Not that every idiot has a right to carry because of an accident of birth. I believe that rights are a two-way street. That there is a required responsibility on the part of the citizen to exercise their rights appropriately. In my world, those that carry do so responsibly and professionally or they do not carry. If a person is willing to put in the time and effort to learn to use a weapon as it should be used, then by all means they should be allowed to exercise their right to carry. If teachers and pilots are willing to be held to the same standards for discriminatory shooting as those that do it currently, then fine, they can carry. Are they willing? Are they able?

Those that are good at what we are talking about are probably less than 1/10 of one millionth of 1% of the military population in the world. There is a reason for that. They go through extensive selection and assessment. The best training in the world. And then they sustain their skills everyday for the duration. It becomes what they are. Shooting a BG from across a classroom with 30 screaming kids in it is not a skill I would classify as an additional duty assignment.

I have no problem whatsoever with Joe Citizen carrying as he goes about his daily activities. But teachers and pilots are not Joe Citizen. There are others involved.

Yes, I believe in a certain way in restrictive gun laws. I believe that if one is an idiot or not willing to put in the time and effort it takes to be proficient (and I'm not talking about some bullshit marksmanship eval), then they shouldn't be allowed to carry. I believe that rights are earned, not given. I don't think God had anything to do with the Bill of Rights. I also don't believe the Founders had anything to do with them excepting for writing them down (with the exception of those that fought). I believe those rights and all the others we all enjoy were earned with the blood, sweat and tears of those proficient at arms and willing to do what had to be done. Having said that, these are not the days for amateurs.

I have 5 family members that are/were school teachers. I have one that is LEO. I have a couple of hundred Brothers. I have been to the finest combat shooting school and served in the finest unit of its type the US military had to offer. I have worked local private security for American, Delta and Continental in what was a high risk environment. I am not speaking to that which is unknown to me.

No, not all school teachers are liberals. Yes, there are some school teachers that are proficient with weapons and could very easily be allowed to carry. But we are not talking about a chosen few. We are talking about school teachers. People that have dedicated their lives to educating our children, not shooting crazy bastards in the face. If you only arm certain segments, what will you do with the rest? What will you say when the crazies begin to choose the teachers and pilots that aren't armed? How long before law suits force a change? How long before the standards have to be lowered to accommodate the lowest common denominator? What will you do to the pilot that leaves his weapon in the bathroom or the teacher with tenure that NDs? do you really think an airline is going to fire a union pilot with 20 years of experience over something like that? What will we do to them if they take action and fail? What will their response be to any criticism of their decision making? Will we just say, "Oh well, he did the best he could. Too bad those two were in the way."?

Oh, and then there is always the mind set. What mind set do you want in the teachers of your children? Are you expecting to instill combat mindset in teachers all across the country because of 10 school shootings? 100? Do you really want your kid's teacher to have combat mindset? How about a maternal-protection instinct? Can you develop that in male teachers? How much additional training will they be willing to go through in order to achieve it?

Despite what many people say, it cannot be switched on and off like a light switch and anyone can deny that all they want, but I know it to be true. You either have it or you don't.

No mindset? In my world, an armed man without combat mindset and warrior ethics is called a target.

Imagine for a second the kind of mean son of a bitch it takes to deal with these crazy rampage bastards. The noise, the confusion. The one reacting is already at a disadvantage with no real way to get it back. His weapon is locked away, the guy is already shooting and has probably killed, He has to step over the body of some kid (maybe his own) that he's known for a while to get to the fight, everybody is running around wild. And we expect the geography teacher to exhibit the same bravery as the firemen and LEOs that went into the Towers on 9-11? And in order to achieve it, we'll give him what? A one week course and 70 or above on B27s at 15 meters once a year? These crazy bastards ain't messing around, they're walking in the door and laying waste - they are terrorists.

This isn't about the 2nd Amendment. You shouldn't be trying to make it so. It is about having the skills to overcome tremendous odds to save lives. If teachers and pilots as groups were capable of doing that on anything approaching a regular basis, they would be LEOs, firemen or soldiers.

Shooting AWGs ain't a hobby Brother, it's a way of life. And you don't get good at it by shooting bulls on Saturdays at A Place To Shoot, then going for wings and beers at Friday's. And you know that.

This isn't the first time I've been called a liberal. It's actually kind of funny, although being a Medic, I suppose it's not all a bad thing.

I don't believe for a minute "that only the uniformed, badge carry folks deserve to carry a gun." I know quite a few LEOs and soldiers that shouldn't be allowed to carry a slingshot, much less a weapon. It is the first time I've been called a sheep. Funny, you accuse me of painting with a broad brush (which I did), but at least I know members of the groups of which I speak - you have deemed to characterize me without ever having met me or knowing anything about me. Interesting. I'll tell the 28 shooters we've got now I'm a sheep on Monday - should be good for a laugh.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. That is the beauty of the this thing.

Anecdote - The Kid learned gung-fu. Actually got pretty good at it. Bigger kid hit him and The Kid put him down. Clear case of right of self-defense. No excessive use of force (one technique). School response was to attempt to counsel me on the need for peaceful resolution of conflict through dialogue or some such shit. Shrink, whole 9-yards.

"Yes ma'am, we'll get right on that counseling thing. Now, in case you didn't notice there's a crazy man KIAing kids in the lobby, better go clear the lobby and eliminate the threat. Oh, and while you're at it, his partner is wiring the stairwell. What's that? You haven't had stairwells in your "training" yet? Well, just do the best you can, I'm sure they're not all that complicated."

One last thing:
How do you know, until it is too late? Are you willing to expend your kids to find out? I ain't.

NDN is dead-on correct. Haven't met a civilian yet that would be up to a firefight in a crowded classroom or on a crowded plane, regardless of the shooting school they attended. Have had some claim that level of expertise yet somehow couldn't demonstrate said expertise on the range....

Hell, we've role-played this stuff in a civilian class for years with dummy weapons and they all--- failed--- miserably. The teachers and pilots I've taught were serious about it and had good intentions yet were regrettably not up to the task at all. My 1 cent......:munchin

Doc I agree with most of what you just posted. I guess the difference is in the way to achieve it. I still think you are refering to a skill set required to plan and execute an offensive operation. There are just to many successful cases of simple civilians with a lot less training than us successfully defending themselves and others by vertue of having and a firearm. I still firmly belive we could save lives by allowing trained individuals who don't have to be SWAT team members or operators on the school grounds. History proves this correct.
I respecfully disagree with some of you conclusion about the right to firearms and think the horse has been beat to death . I will continue my programs and see if I can make my state a safer place thru legally armed and trained citizens. Im sure you are fully capable of executing your mission and do not intend to argue the point. I also do not need to know you as you made your view clear in your original posting and I was responding to that posting and not to your capabilities or job performance.I guess its all about perspective as to what constitutes an adequate level of training to save your on life with a firearm.

Out here.

Fair enough. Best of luck to you in your endeavors. If you can provide a case study of an armed teacher or pilot saving the day, I would love to see it.

And if you do manage to get your teachers armed and want to test them, for the price of a plane ticket, lodging, Copenhagen and beer - I'll bring a couple of our shooters up and we can run them on SIMs and see what the outcome is. You win, the beer is on me and I'll post of picture of myself on this board wearing a pink ballet tutu over golf clothes. And put my jungle boots up for auction.;)

Fair warning, our guys don't speak English - I taught them "Put your hands up" means "Shoot me in the face".:cool:

De Oppresso Liber Brother

The people you are describing as fully qualified don't exist in law enforcement. Period. In fact, the officers first responding to the scene may only shoot twice a year, less than two boxes of ammo then, and they are the initial rescue team.

The school threat so far in CONUS has been cowardly pieces of shit who think a gun and a pair make a man. Not pros. Yet, anyway. When that happens, all bets are off.

Let's examine the school shooting scenarios so far. Normally, a crazed geek (or two) is walking through the building shooting other kids pretty much at random, just because he can. Police response is normally several minutes away. Your kids (or mine) are per policy, in a classroom hiding under their desk with a glass paneled door locked, hoping that the BG does not come in and take their lives. I'll let the teacher who does have a pair, but only practices monthly, take his best shots as the punk forces the door, rather than hoping that the slimy little bastard doing this runs out of ammo and pipe bombs first. IMHO, if the scumbag perp is confronted by a determined man with a gun, he may just quit, since he is a loser to start with. If the teacher is not confident, at least he can cover the door effectively. I believe that you are discussing hostage rescue. I am talking about defensive shooting, which is a damn sight easier. Even some officers can do it.

The choice here is not what some are making it.

Essentially, scenario one is teacher has no gun, so teacher keeps the kids quiet and locked down while they hope and pray that the competent SWAT arrives in a timely fashion, or the BG suicides or runs out of ammo.

Scenario two is teacher gets his gun out and makes sure that the bastard doesn't get into the room to hurt any of HIS kids.

I guess scenario three could be teacher is hunting down the bad guy in a hallway or classroom full of kids, but that looks like absolute worst case to me and a generally bad idea.

The guns stay locked up in a quick opening lockbox, like the ones some of us use in our homes.

The FFDOs have a training and qualification regimen they have to follow. It is LE sensitive and the ones who post here can give it if they are permitted. I do know that it is not cheap or easy. Incidentally, again, the gun is not in the cockpit for the FFDO to go all Steven Segal and to shoot down 8 hijackers in the main cabin with a 7 round mag and no friendly hits. That is the FAM's job, not the pilot's. The gun is there to keep someone from breaking down a 72" x 24" reinforced door and taking control of the plane. Defensive shooting, not surgical, discriminating, or offensive. I trust that they have sufficient training to put enough of the 12 rounds in the first mag into BGs to make that breaching mission very unpopular. If I had a choice when signing up for a flight, I would take the armed aircrew over the unarmed every time. Maybe I am just too trusting like that. The FFDO program has been in effect for a few year now. More FAMs have lost control of their weapons than FFDOs, IIRC.

The real loophole was cargo carriers, which were not covered by the FFDO program till recently. That is important, since the FedEx DC-10 full of JP-8 and Christmas gifts is just as deadly to people on the ground as a DC-10 full of JP-8 and passengers. Yes, there have been armed attempts to take over cargo planes for terrorist purposes which resulted in serious injuries. Glad that they are allowed to carry now as well.

Why would the pilot having a gun bother me when he is already flying the plane I am trapped in? If he can't be trusted with as gun, I sure as hell don't want him flying me around.

The armed teacher program could have whatever rules and requirements you wanted, as long as it allowed qualified people to have access to a gun in emergencies.

Read this now, and believe me later, Doc:

Off the top of my head, at least one teacher (Vice Prinicpal, actually) with a gun has already stopped a school shooting. Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Students with guns have already stopped a school shooting at a law school in Virginia. Not sure if that is a real good thing or not. You can google it for the details.

FFDO saves? Not that I have heard of yet. But I sleep better having fire insurance and an extinguisher, even though I haven't needed them yet either, so it doesn't bother me.

Guess we will have to disagree on the origins of the Bill of Rights as well, hermano. Different strokes for different folks. Especially medics. ;)

TR

Very well said Reaper.
You gave great examples of the point I was trying to get accross.
Enough said.
As for DOC having to providing Sims for the teachers we already do that but we use UTM training ammo. More up to date and realistic in the M4s as you use the same upper and sights you will fight with .
I have to leave for the next week and will not be able to respond to this thread for awhile.
If anyone ever wants to come out and shoot we don't have to have a bet going on to do it. Hell we can pull a bunch of guns out and do it for the fun and trainging value. I learn something everytime I shoot with someone new who has a lot of experience and I would never ask a professional to wear a pink tootoo.
Take care all see you in about a week or so.

NDD, all due respect,
I have read your inputs to this thread with invested interest both as a father of school age children and as a former military commercial pilot who serves. You make many claimed subject matter expert assumptions, and generalizations that I challenge with respect to both the arming of qualified commercial pilots and teachers within the public school system. As a former military commercial pilot who serves, I would challenge you to range time anytime, anywhere. As a father, who has children who attend public school I would challenge your personal opinion that I do not have the right to demand that qualified public school educators be armed at all times with the capability to respond to active shooter protocols

[QUOTE]I'm not familiar with LEO in your part of the country but I can assure you that LE in my part of the country shoot once a month mandatory and qualify twice a year. Failing to qualify results in remedial training. Failure is not based on a percentage. If one round fails to strike home, it is a failure. I can also assure you that firearms training in this part of the country (Colorado, including Bailey) is not stress free. In fact all training includes stressors to induce excelerated heart rates, noise irritants, visual impairments, timed to include reloads etc.

Quite a few people have taken some cheap shots at Jeff Co SWAT in regards to their actions at Bailey. Those officers, like our SWAT team, trains 20 hours a month in addition to other department wide firearms monthly training. This does not include the extended training seminars they attend annually.

A friend of mine sent me an email shortly after this incident. He was the agent who spent those agonizing minutes with Emily's father outside that school house. He was with him when the shots rang out and he was with him when his daughter was brought out of the school. NOT ONCE did Emily's father say a disparaging word about LE. Not once have you heard anyone from that community complain about the actions of LE that day. In fact the media reports relayed just the opposite.

Contrary to misguided beliefs there are highly qualifed LE throughout this nation. Period.

422 officers have been killed in the line of duty in the last two years and 9 months. If one takes into consideration the actual attacks on officers during that time period, I would say that the relatively low ratio of officers killed is evidence of their qualifications.

Perhaps some of the critics could offer their opinion on "Active Shooter" training that is now part of annual training for LE. I can assure you that the "initial responders" have fired far more than two boxes of ammunition and are trained to enter and seek the shooter out. Interestingly enough the "Small Town Bailey officers" did exactly as they were trained to do and entered the school immediately and located the gunman and hostages, containing the area of threat and allowing the rest of the students to get out of the school. They did not wait outside the school for SWAT.

CoLawman,

Be greatful for the training that your agency is providing for you. Some of us don't have the same fortune. Luckly for me I have had the good fortune to shoot with TS. The rest of my agency gets to suck on the 20 year old info that was once gospel.

Only until recently when I started spanking people on gun quals and shooting comps (with ease) has our Firearms training started to evolve. And active shooter training "Ha" We got intial training in the academy, everything past that has been unoffical squad level training. -and that isn't impressive at all.

I'm not gonna lie I'm a little jealous you guys get to shoot that much.

"Challenge me to range?" That's twice in one thread. You guys don't get what I am trying to say. Let me try again: IT IS NOT ABOUT SHOOTING BULLSEYES! How are you going to qualify them? Have a minimum average score or something? Once a month? WHAT? You say "arming of qualified" - that is the issue - the "qualified". It's not a freakin' driving test. The light nature with which some take the kind of shooting under discussion leads me to believe some of you really don't have any idea.

This isn't about the 2nd Amendment. It isn't about scoring 70 (or any other number) on a flat range. It is about CQB. You guys call me arrogant? What kind of arrogance does it take to think you are going to train a school teacher to do CQB in a week on a flat range and maintain him at that level with a box of rounds once a month.

You guys kill me. Remember when the they tried to make the teachers take competency exams?

Remember when they called commercial pilots up for DS?

What are you going to say when a teacher feels "threatened" and shoots a kid? Not a beserker, but just a kid that got a little too aggressive?

I'm pissing everybody off and I've said my piece, so I'll stop now. It should be clear how I feel about encouraging amateurs shooting in rooms full of kids. Or airplanes.

Focus should be on denying access, not some last ditch wing and a prayer hope placed on the shoulders of the gym teacher with a gun.

NDD,

I don't think you're pissing everyone off; I think yours is a dissenting opinion in the face of apparently overwhelming opposition. Maybe there aren't others that share your view, or maybe there are and they're meek and mild about expressing it. It's just context.

Regardless, I agree with your position. I believe it realistic.

While I understand TR and Logan's arguements and agree with many in principle, I think your point about the skillsets necessary to win trumps them all. I'm a pretty good shot for a dude who practiced a bit as a civilian and had a couple of great military instructors in Second Phase (both times I went). That I'm somewhat freaked out that, so far as I can tell, there isn't any more range time for the rest of the Q is another story. . . (this is the part where I buy my own M-4, etc).

I probably have the skill level of say a motivated teacher who took a couple of classes and goes to the range once a month. Actually, I'm probably a bit better, but I wouldn't put me in a classroom with a gun and 30-40 6th graders. Bad guy comes in and we go at it, well, I'll certainly do my best. But I'm not skilled enough yet to guarentee that my best will be good enough. With kids in the equation, I think we need that guarentee.

All this coming from a fellow who consciously chose to be a warrior, not a middle school teacher.

I appreciate being allowed to post on this topic; I come from a family of educators and this subject is a soft spot for me (and obviously, for all of us).

Finally, on a related note, Lt. Col David Gossman's s The Bulletproof Mind has been recommended in the past, but I think it deserves another look. He spends quite a bit of time discussing school violence and the LEO response to active shooters.

Cheers,

Books

[QUOTE=CoLawman]I recently spent two years working with and training LEOs across the country. I have no hate or disrespect for LEOs. They do a tough job for in most cases, low wages. At the same time, we have to be realistic. Perhaps you are too close to the cause to do that.

Your experience may be valid in your jurisdiction. I respectfully suggest that it is not nationwide.

You take offense where none is intended. The fact is that in most cases, state requirements drive LE firearms training and qualification. Most departments I have worked with tend toward the low side of that requirement rather than the upper end. For example, as I understand it, NC (and the local departments) require only 12 rounds fired per year in low-light for night qualification. I consider that criminally negligent. As you so thoughtfully suggested, I do not live in Mayberry and cannot run for Sheriff there, but I can get a bus to Mt. Airy and be there in less than an hour.

I am sure that since Columbine, and other high profile cases in Colorado, LE there has received new focus and additional requirements for HR.

Here is a fact. NDD has described a requirement for a full mission profile assault on a linear target with discriminatating fires. I personally do not believe that any LE HR team in the nation, to include the FBI HRT, is up to that standard. The only units that are, do not write cites, run radar, investigate traffic accidents, intervene in domestic situations, bust dopers, sit in court, or any of the other mundane, but necessary things an LE does. They shoot, and practice HR everyday. Period. Probably more rounds in one day than most LEOs fire in a year. Again, that is not a comment on anyones' manliness, motivation, or dedication. It is budget and mission driven.

Take a look at the primary users of this board. Military members understand that comments about officers on a military board mean military officers. You know, LTs, Captains, Majors, that sort of thing. LEO means cops.

I am sorry that you took offense where none was intended. At the same time, I stand by my comments based on the number of departments and tac teams I have interacted with in the past two years from New Hampshire to Southern California.

If you have any more feedback, drop the attitude. It isn't professional.

APLP, you are coming across a little strong as well.

Books, I hear what you are saying, but again, we are not talking CQB, we are talking static defensive shooting. I am not a big fan of LTC Grossman. It looks to me like he took a short monograph with a simple thesis and has made a second career off it. Good on him. Some of his points are valid, but I think other thoughts of his are real stretches.

TR

My 2 cents
 

Most agencies train the minimum amount of required hours necessary for qualification. Some agencies (depending on culture) actually look down on guys as "gun nuts" if shooting and tactics are practiced off duty. Thats reality. Another reality is that using a firearm is such a small part of LE work that many agents/officers/troopers think it will never happen to them. A friend/coworker of mine was one of those nay sayers to firearms training and tactics...never took it seriously. One night (Jan 17? 2005) he stopped two homicide suspects. Long story short.... after a very long vehicle pursuit followed by an even longer foot pursuit one suspect attempted to ambush Fran. Fran had six rounds of .357 fired at him at a range of <10 feet. Somehow they all missed...bad guy was shot twice....one in the arm (by Fran) and one in the foot by his back up. Fran is now one of the most tactically aware guys I work with and attempts to learn as much as possible. Most LEO's who care will take the time/money/effort to get in schools and train on off time to increase tactical skills and awareness because the reality is that most agencies unfortunately have other priorities.

TR,

My apologies, previous post edited. I should never post after getting off of work........adrenalin intoxication.

Armed Flight Crew
 

As to guns in the cockpit, they were there long before the FFDO program, prior to PSA 1771. I was “retired” before the flight crews were required to clear security, but prior to that I knew plenty of pilots (mostly WW2 through Vietnam era guys) who carried handguns in their flight bags despite the regs. It was kind of a “Don’t ask; don’t tell” policy.

Pat

To all the Quite Professionals I apologize if I have seemed to challenge and disrespect NDD, it was not my intention to do so. I am a guest in this house and feel fortunate to be so.

I have been familiar with the armed pilot program since its inception. While every military or law enforcement organization has a certain percentage of folks who are less capable I believe those commercial pilots who serve as sworn federal officers are very capable to function competently within the scope of the flight deck and SOP’s. Of the thousands who currently serve the great majority are former military pilots who are very familiar with combat mindset and have no hesitation to accomplish their mission in defense of the cockpit. The armed pilot program mission statement is very focused on a specific operating environment under very specific ROE. There is no other source of manpower that can provide the capability to defend the flight deck as the armed pilot program currently does. Those on duty armed pilots serve the requirements of Homeland Security, not the immediate safety of the passengers.

With respect to the subject matter of arming qualified teachers, I fully support such a program. I think one day our country might very well be faced with the necessity to mimic some of the programs which arm citizens much as the Israelis do now. I am quite sure their schools are much safer from active shooter scenarios than ours. Criminals who pray on our school children are terrorists be they domestic or foreign and not worthy of the air they breathe. I don’t want my child hog tied and tortured before he is murdered because there was no chance of an immediate armed response to an active shooter. Train those who volunteer and qualify to a standard which meets or exceeds law enforcement agencies and let them carry.